Social services’ praise helped Baby P mother escape neglect charge

Baby P: Haringey social services backed mother’s relationship with her son

A REPORT by Haringey social services that praised the mother of Baby P played a key role in preventing her being prosecuted for child neglect.

The document was sent by the council to police and prosecutors as part of an investigation into allegations that the child's mother had assaulted or wilfully neglected the toddler.

It was "supportive" of her relationship with the boy — despite medical testimony that he had already been deliberately harmed — and, crucially, provided no evidence that would have backed up a decision to prosecute.

In further revelations today, it has also emerged that doctors provided medical evidence that Baby P had been deliberately injured on two separate occasions — rather than one as was originally thought.

The first was after the toddler was admitted to hospital in December 2006 — eight months before he died — and the second was after he sustained further unexplained injuries the following June.

Three doctors, including one consultant paediatrician, gave evidence about the cases — with all agreeing that the injuries were "suggestive of non-accidental harm".

The most significant new development, however, is the revelation of Haringey's role in derailing efforts to prosecute Baby P's mother.

She had been arrested in December 2006 after the boy was admitted to hospital with bruising to his forehead, nose, sternum and right shoulder, and was under investigation for three possible offences: actual bodily harm, assault and wilful neglect.

As the Standard revealed yesterday, although medical evidence indicated that the injuries were the result of child abuse, a prosecution for assault or actual bodily harm proved impossible, principally because it could not be determined how, when or by whom the injuries had been inflicted.

But it has emerged that an alternative charge of wilful neglect was also considered which, because Baby P was in his mother's care, would have required less certainty as to who caused his injuries.

This is because a person can be judged to have left a child either alone, or inadequately supervised, "in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health" — even if they have not carried out any assault themselves or knowingly connived in such an attack.

With the medical evidence indicating that Baby P had been deliberately harmed by someone, a prosecution for wilful neglect could, theoretically, have been possible if further supporting evidence had been available against his mother. But that possibility was undermined by the social services report, which was sent to police as part of the investigation and which praised the mother's relationship with her son.

A Crown Prosecution Service spokeswoman confirmed that a charge of wilful neglect had been considered and that Haringey's endorsement of the mother's conduct had failed to support criminal proceedings.

"Social services provided a statement that was supportive of the mother's relationship with Baby P. In the light of that, this statement did not provide any evidence that would have assisted a prosecution for wilful neglect."

An official serious case review led by Haringey's head of children's services, Sharon Shoesmith, concluded that the council was not to blame for the baby's death, although two social workers and a lawyer did receive written warnings.